[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A9667DDFB95DB7438FA9D7D576C3D87E0ACBB847@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:46:42 +0000
From: "Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Li, Liang Z" <liang.z.li@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"Hao, Xudong" <xudong.hao@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [v6] kvm/fpu: Enable fully eager restore kvm FPU
Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2015-04-24:
>
>
> On 24/04/2015 03:16, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>>> This is interesting since previous measurements on KVM have had the
>>> exact opposite results. I think we need to understand this a lot
>>> more.
>>
>> What I can tell is that vmexit is heavy. So it is reasonable to see
>> the improvement under some cases, especially kernel is using eager
>> FPU now which means each schedule may trigger a vmexit.
>
> On the other hand vmexit is lighter and lighter on newer processors; a
> Sandy Bridge has less than half the vmexit cost of a Core 2 (IIRC 1000
> vs. 2500 clock cycles approximately).
>
1000 cycles? I remember it takes about 4000 cycle even in HSW server.
> Also, measurement were done on Westmere but Sandy Bridge is the first
> processor to have XSAVEOPT and thus use eager FPU.
>
> Paolo
Best regards,
Yang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists